I encourage all interested parties to conduct their own search for truth and make up their own mind about the mysteries surrounding alleged alien abduction. The challenge most fail at in their search is obtaining a wide sample of material representing a wide range of credible sources. The challenge exists not because the material is difficult to obtain, but because most people do not desire to find it.

It is rare for people within UFOdom to have a reasonably working knowledge of such diverse topics as mental health issues, physiological issues and the intelligence community in proportion to their knowledge of abduction lore. The irony, of course, is that the former can be substantiated while the latter cannot – and that brings us to the heart of the problem with many abduction researchers.

They often assert to “know” this or that absolutely fantastic item to be true, the same as you can look around the UFO community and observe any number of its members doing, while they can prove no such assertion whatsoever. You need look no further than the websites of some of the researchers to see they claim to have proof of one thing or another that perpetually never amounts to much of anything more than rumors of yesteryear. Worst of all, individuals such as David Jacobs and organizations such as MUFON often do so under the claim of conducting scientific research.

That is a primary problem. I invite others to identify it as such, and following is why:

If people just want to hang out and reinforce their shared beliefs, then fine. Ghost stories around the campfire and all that.

If, however, they claim to be conducting scientific investigation, they have a responsibility to conduct themselves in accordance with the scientific method of investigation. Witness testimony and particularly subjective assessment carries minimal weight as compared to physical evidence, authenticated documents and such – along with all the other dynamics recognized by the professional research community which must either apply or, of course, professional research is not actually being conducted.

Again, I will point out that is fine – as long as it is not called science or professional research, because, by definition, it simply is not. A big problem therefore lies in the abduction researchers continuing to cling to methods of investigation circa 1964 and rightfully not recognized as valid by the professional research community. More specifically, the problem lies in researchers' persistence to do so while demanding acceptance from a scientific community they either fail to understand or try to exploit. For those unaware, the American Medical Association issued a statement clearly establishing it does not recognize or endorse the use of hypnosis for any purposes at all, much less as an effective memory retrieval tool.

Methodology

Part of my point being there is no supposedly proper method whatsoever of hypnotizing traumatized individuals and exploring the likelihood they have abusers originating from another planet, at least not as recognized by academia. As a matter of fact, a good argument could be made that such activities are barbaric. In the situation of Jacobs, however, no such argument is required, as he claimed to have developed therapeutic methods of regressive hypnosis that can quickly be rejected. The facts of the matter include he is not professionally qualified (as a historian) to design or conduct any type of psychologically therapeutic activity. One can see the contradictions involved in trying to accept Jacobs' claims of conducting scientific research when, in fact, his views on hypnosis require assigning him qualifications to design and assess hypnosis procedures, which he academically simply does not possess. To add insult to injury, we would have to give Jacobs' assertions more validity than we assign the AMA stance on the issue, a body which of course practices scientific principles and is far more qualified to assess medical techniques than is a historian.

Jacobs and his followers are entitled to believe anything they want. They are not entitled to misrepresent such beliefs as scientifically credible, and we are most certainly not required to silently accept such misrepresentations.

One of the most important and typically overlooked points is that the scientific process, of which such researchers as Jacobs claim to recognize and endorse, does not require critical thinkers to invalidate his attachments to the use of hypnosis. Rather, it is his responsibility to validate a hypothesis through the process of collecting data, submitting it to proper channels for peer review and so on, which neither he, Hopkins nor any of their faithful ever successfully navigated. As a matter of fact, Jacobs demonstrated adamant opposition to such, as documented by Ted Goertzel of Rutgers, among others.

That would be participating in the scientific process.

What about advances made in DNA research that could be implemented in abduction research? Dr. Tyler Kokjohn informs us important molecular evidence could be obtained long after the alleged fact, including testing those who suspect they may have been involved in breeding programs for many years after they may have carried some kind of hybrid fetus. Both Jacobs and Barbara Lamb repeatedly avoided such lines of discussion while often seeming largely unaware science had long since surpassed the circumstances required to keep the abduction narrative under a protective cloak of non-verifiable. The fact of the matter is such claims can now be verified – or shown to be unsubstantiated – if researchers care to do so.

Witnesses

Yet another principle point that should be emphasized involves the witness. Wild speculation and poor investigative procedures get us no closer to actually understanding what might be happening to people who may truly be experiencing circumstances of interest, and, much, much more importantly, witnesses are being injured in the process. In some cases, drastically and critically injured.

Suicides among self-described abductees are not particularly uncommon; UFO-related discussion forums typically have threads dedicated to tragic situations that should never have happened – but did; whatever one may choose to make of the Emma Woods case, it would seem painfully clear she was not helped by a historian conducting Skype-hypnosis about hybrids raping her night after night for days on end; Leah Haley was referred by Hopkins, after inquiring about a single childhood UFO sighting, to MUFON's John Carpenter who proceeded to 'help' her hypnotically construct an entire lifetime of alien and military torturous abductions, of which she may very well never fully recover from the emotional traumata experienced.

There are many more such circumstances. There is also no question that many people who find their ways into the UFO community would be much better served by a competent psychoanalyst than an overly enthusiastic hypnotist with grandiose dreams of alien-hunting, or, at the least, they would be better served by actual scientists or professional researchers than people masquerading as such under the camouflage provided by MUFON, ICAR or the like.

Summary

In review:

- An inherent challenge to ufology, and particularly alleged alien abduction, is that its followers do not seek information that provides a balanced and objective point of view. Actually, they are often quite unaware of the current mental health paradigm, symptoms of emotional traumata, relevant physiological circumstances and similar subject matter, the absence of which substantially obstructs their abilities to form objective and more complete understandings of what became known as the abduction phenomenon.

- A primary problem is many researchers misrepresent their activities to be scientific, exploiting the less educated and poorly informed, intentionally or otherwise.

- It is not my responsibility or the responsibility of anyone else to invalidate hypotheses related to regressive hypnosis, but the responsibility of its practitioners to validate the activity as an effective memory retrieval tool, which has never been accomplished. Neither have proponents of hypnosis ever competently or thoroughly addressed the dangers of emotional suffering inherent to the activity, all of which futilely result in, at best, nothing more than witness testimony.

- A primary problem is self-described witnesses seeking support are being deeply hurt. This is taking place while those who subscribe to alien abduction as established, literal occurrences, often to fanatical extents, are damaging the injured parties even further, commonly lashing out at them while making excuses for the incompetence of irresponsible hypnotists.

- If researchers want to be accepted by academia, they must adhere to rules and practices, i.e., peer review, proper recognition of standards of evidence, accept hypnosis is not a reliable memory retrieval tool, etc., that are established by academia, else stop claiming their work to have scientific merit. Equally important would be members of the UFO community learning to more accurately identify misrepresentations of scientific merit.

A good artical pointing out the weaknesses of much of UFOlogy. There is a reason we use the phrase "do you believe in UFOs?" as so much of the issue is based on faith in the lore of UFOlogy rather than any science.

Logged

"Two people CAN keep a secret, provided one of them is dead." B. Franklin

Great article, Jjflash! Going for a positive approach, how would you propose dealing with anekdotal abduction evidence (often: heartfelt personal testimony!), which scientific disciplines to apply first, and could you flesh out a 'proper scientific method' a little more?

purr

Logged

Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.

@purr: I have some thoughts that relate to the questions you direct to jjflash, so I hope you don't mind if I respond to them. They are questions that need an answer if we're to actually accomplish anything meaningful in understanding the strangeness of this phenomena.

Anecdotes, being a type of unverifiable witness testimony, is of little use to scientific pursuit. I can understand how this might lead some people to feel that "their story doesn't matter," but nothing could be further from the truth. Science first and foremost is a tool we use to attempt to achieve an objective understanding of a subject, and because of its reliance upon empirical evidence, the tool must be able to establish true or false values for all variables in a specific scheme. Another way of putting that might be "everything must be falsifiable."

Think of this essential function as it relates to the simple equation x + 3 = 8. A student stands up in class and shares how he knows that x = 7 because he saw it in a dream. Using the problem-solving algorithm called the order of operations, we can easily discover that x does not equal 7; we find that x = 5. I used an overly simplified example in this illustration, but I think it successfully demonstrates why anecdotes have no value in the scientific problem-solving system. Every assertion must be able to be tested to determine their true or false value.

Furthermore, in order to guarantee that research results are valid and genuine, other scientists must be able to test the assertion and arrive at the same result. This must be replicated over and over again in order to establish validity. Anecdotes cannot be tested nor subjected to scrutiny.

Quote:

...which scientific disciplines to apply first, and could you flesh out a 'proper scientific method' a little more?

In my opinion, a multi-pronged approach is needed in order to understand the phenomena of abduction. Whatever it is that's going on, there can be no disputing that certain people are affected adversely by it. People need to be listened to, and they need help. The only truly "objective" and scientific approach to psychology - behavioral psychology - needs to play a role in the intake process. Regardless of what abduction really is, it has tangible effects in the realm of human behavior.

The scientific method is a problem-solving algorithm. It can be summed up as follows:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

As a student of computer science, I study logic and algorithms. The "scientific method" is an algorithm specifically designed to provide a proofing process to retroductive reasoning. The null hypothesis is employed as a falsification tool in order to ascertain the true or false value of any assertion of logic. Through experimentation, observation, measurement, and peer review (rinse and repeat), an objective result can be arrived at which will deliver a definitive answer.

In the case of abduction, forensic analysis must be employed. This should be conducted separately from the treatment of the abductee. Regardless of the true or false value of their experiences, I am convinced they need assistance in dealing with psychological trauma. They should *never* be exploited, manipulated, or ever allowed to serve as vehicles for someone else's monetary gain.

Abductees are human beings deserving of the greatest care and respect. They should be protected from con artists and quacks like David Jacobs. Hypnosis, like the polygraph test, is inadmissible as evidence in both the laboratory and the courtroom. Hypnosis induces states of consciousness that increase the suggestivity of the subject, and studies have shown that hypnotized subjects will internalize the suggestions given to them during that state. It is for this reason that hypnosis should never be part of a forensic investigation process, and why reputable researchers and law enforcement agencies eschew its use.

@purr: I have some thoughts that relate to the questions you direct to jjflash, so I hope you don't mind if I respond to them. They are questions that need an answer if we're to actually accomplish anything meaningful in understanding the strangeness of this phenomena.

Anecdotes, being a type of unverifiable witness testimony, is of little use to scientific pursuit. I can understand how this might lead some people to feel that "their story doesn't matter," but nothing could be further from the truth. Science first and foremost is a tool we use to attempt to achieve an objective understanding of a subject, and because of its reliance upon empirical evidence, the tool must be able to establish true or false values for all variables in a specific scheme. Another way of putting that might be "everything must be falsifiable."

Think of this essential function as it relates to the simple equation x + 3 = 8. A student stands up in class and shares how he knows that x = 7 because he saw it in a dream. Using the problem-solving algorithm called the order of operations, we can easily discover that x does not equal 7; we find that x = 5. I used an overly simplified example in this illustration, but I think it successfully demonstrates why anecdotes have no value in the scientific problem-solving system. Every assertion must be able to be tested to determine their true or false value.

Furthermore, in order to guarantee that research results are valid and genuine, other scientists must be able to test the assertion and arrive at the same result. This must be replicated over and over again in order to establish validity. Anecdotes cannot be tested nor subjected to scrutiny.

In my opinion, a multi-pronged approach is needed in order to understand the phenomena of abduction. Whatever it is that's going on, there can be no disputing that certain people are affected adversely by it. People need to be listened to, and they need help. The only truly "objective" and scientific approach to psychology - behavioral psychology - needs to play a role in the intake process. Regardless of what abduction really is, it has tangible effects in the realm of human behavior.

The scientific method is a problem-solving algorithm. It can be summed up as follows:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

As a student of computer science, I study logic and algorithms. The "scientific method" is an algorithm specifically designed to provide a proofing process to retroductive reasoning. The null hypothesis is employed as a falsification tool in order to ascertain the true or false value of any assertion of logic. Through experimentation, observation, measurement, and peer review (rinse and repeat), an objective result can be arrived at which will deliver a definitive answer.

In the case of abduction, forensic analysis must be employed. This should be conducted separately from the treatment of the abductee. Regardless of the true or false value of their experiences, I am convinced they need assistance in dealing with psychological trauma. They should *never* be exploited, manipulated, or ever allowed to serve as vehicles for someone else's monetary gain.

Abductees are human beings deserving of the greatest care and respect. They should be protected from con artists and quacks like David Jacobs. Hypnosis, like the polygraph test, is inadmissible as evidence in both the laboratory and the courtroom. Hypnosis induces states of consciousness that increase the suggestivity of the subject, and studies have shown that hypnotized subjects will internalize the suggestions given to them during that state. It is for this reason that hypnosis should never be part of a forensic investigation process, and why reputable researchers and law enforcement agencies eschew its use.

Thanks for the explanation of science, Bewildered. I'll hang back some on answering some parts of your post, because I am kinda curious where Jjflash is taking us here. (It's his topic.)

But, preliminary thoughts. I would hope indeed that the forensic investigation of abductees would be separate from the 'treatment' of reporting alien experience. If only for the fact that these are people who remember (fragments of) difficult to frame, potentially deeply disturbing interaction with unknown entities. Sure, they must be approached therapeutically, not used for exploitation as you say. (This is not to say that abductees can only by helped by HC professionals or UFO researchers who work for free: we wouldn't want abduction investigators to die en masse of starvation.)

Like I said, I'm waiting for Jjflash to develop his own reasoning here. Yet to your suggestion that one cannot readily apply science to anecdotes (stories, testimony), I answer: this is an anecdotal phenomenon. It's anekdote DRIVEN. See, we could model it in various ways like below.

1) Aliens/extraterrestrials approach a human subject, induce an altered state of mind plus transport the abductee into another universe or dimension, to make contact / carry out medical procedures, and return this person to Earth, normal reality.

2) We are observing an as yet undefined psychiatric disorder, expressing as memory of encounters with ETs, which then persists in the mind of the abductee as real, emotionally harmful, memories.

3) Paranormal entities approach a human subject, masquerading as extraterrestrials, inducing hallucinations of being taken up into flying saucers, thus causing potentially traumatic memories in abductees.

There's option 5, 6, 7 without doubt, bewildered, but however abduction is ultimately caused, it comes to us in a majority of cases as ANEKDOTE. Guy or gal has harrowing / wondrous tale to tell.

What is your thinking on this? If the scientific method does not apply, has no truth-finding role to play on the testimony of abductees, doesn't this mean that Science is bound to dismiss Abduction as research subject, since it is unverifiable? Is Science unfit to investigate Abduction? And must not then scientists stretch their methods to fit the phenomenon presenting itself? (Such stretch might exactly involve the use of non-hard sciences like History and Psychology, leading to the efforts of Prof John Mack and Dr David Jacobs [I acknowledged the latter's specific error in practice], and many others including 'ufologists' attempting to create a wholly new science fitting alien experiences.)

Finally, from our agreement on the therapeutics staying separate from the forensics (in cases with trace), I submit the idea that hypnotic regression may support the healing needs of experiencers. These sessions do not yield solid, historical truth. But they can help rebalance a mind wracked by incomplete, fragmented memories of frightening, disturbing alien encounters. They may constitute part of effective therapy.

Final, final thoughts: in John Mack's (transcripted) sessions with abduction experiencers imo he demonstrated mastery of abstaining from suggesting/projecting memory. During Betty and Barney Hill's hypnotic regressions the UFO skeptical psychiatrist introduced negative suggestions (toward non alien explanations) and these failed to dissuade them, presumably due to the emotionaly intensity of these two early abductees' memories. This gives hope that raising Hypnotic Therapy standards may still yield more than healing. Even some information about what the abductees actually went through.

Thanks for the explanation of science, Bewildered. I'll hang back some on answering some parts of your post, because I am kinda curious where Jjflash is taking us here. (It's his topic.)

Of course. It's a topic that greatly interests me, so I felt I might offer my thoughts. I have no doubt that jjflash will respond sooner or later.

Quote:

But, preliminary thoughts. I would hope indeed that the forensic investigation of abductees would be separate from the 'treatment' of reporting alien experience. If only for the fact that these are people who remember (fragments of) difficult to frame, potentially deeply disturbing interaction with unknown entities. Sure, they must be approached therapeutically, not used for exploitation as you say. (This is not to say that abductees can only by helped by HC professionals or UFO researchers who work for free: we wouldn't want abduction investigators to die en masse of starvation.)

I don't see "abduction" as being distinct from any other traumatic experience; therapy should indeed be conducted by the appropriate professionals, because maladies like generalized panic disorder, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, clinical depression, etc., are suffered by some abductees. I'm not a fan nor supporter of psychotropic medication, so I would rather see abductees enter therapy or counseling with a psychologist first.

What exactly is a "UFO researcher?" There's a big problem right there...what is their background in? Their credentials? Qualifications? As far as I know, anyone can proclaim themselves as a UFO researcher and go into business.

Quote:

Yet to your suggestion that one cannot readily apply science to anecdotes (stories, testimony), I answer: this is an anecdotal phenomenon. It's anekdote DRIVEN. See, we could model it in various ways like below.

1) Aliens/extraterrestrials approach a human subject, induce an altered state of mind plus transport the abductee into another universe or dimension, to make contact / carry out medical procedures, and return this person to Earth, normal reality.

2) We are observing an as yet undefined psychiatric disorder, expressing as memory of encounters with ETs, which then persists in the mind of the abductee as real, emotionally harmful, memories.

3) Paranormal entities approach a human subject, masquerading as extraterrestrials, inducing hallucinations of being taken up into flying saucers, thus causing potentially traumatic memories in abductees.

There's option 5, 6, 7 without doubt, bewildered, but however abduction is ultimately caused, it comes to us in a majority of cases as ANEKDOTE. Guy or gal has harrowing / wondrous tale to tell.

The experience that an abductee claims to have suffered is one thing, and any psychological effects they exhibit is another. The latter can be observed in the clinical environment, and quite frankly, helping these people learn how to cope with their issues is really the best thing anyone can do for them. It can quite literally destroy a person's life, and that's the real tragedy to me.

Without any form of corroborating evidence (DNA or physical evidence of some sort), you are correct: the abduction experience itself is beyond the ability of science to address. I don't "dismiss" it out of hand, and I can't think of any scientist worth their salt who would, either. Anything is possible, and as it stands, it is only possible to deal with abduction on a case-by-case basis. Unless abductees are willing to fully cooperate with forensic investigators, photographic experts, etc., any hope of science addressing their situation beyond helping them cope with the psychological distress will never happen.

My personal take on number 3 (just my conjecture): that might be what is actually happening, but someone's perception of the event and any participants might be hopelessly mired by individual bias, beliefs, and their state of mind at the time it happens. "Paranormal" might be properly understood to be anything beyond the recognized causative agents at work in the universe we think we perceive and understand. This universe is constantly changing (and growing) as we discover new things.

Quote:

What is your thinking on this? If the scientific method does not apply, has no truth-finding role to play on the testimony of abductees, doesn't this mean that Science is bound to dismiss Abduction as research subject, since it is unverifiable? Is Science unfit to investigate Abduction? And must not then scientists stretch their methods to fit the phenomenon presenting itself? (Such stretch might exactly involve the use of non-hard sciences like History and Psychology, leading to the efforts of Prof John Mack and Dr David Jacobs [I acknowledged the latter's specific error in practice], and many others including 'ufologists' attempting to create a wholly new science fitting alien experiences.)

The scientific method always applies, because unless we can establish some means of objectively assigning a true or false value to any assertion, any effort to study this phenomenon is a waste of time. If we are dealing with a "nuts and bolts" thing, then the matter vehicles and matter occupants will certainly leave a trace of their presence and activities. However - and this is purely hypothetical - if we are dealing with something inter-dimensional, everything changes. The existence of multiple universes is at a hypothetical stage at this time, but the thought behind their existence is rather compelling.

We are gaining ground. NASA's (Never A Straight Answer, I know ) "warp" research is an example of thinking out of the box. Objects don't move through space-time, space-time itself moves. This would actually begin to explain how certain unidentified objects exhibit such strange and inexplicable behavior and "violate" the laws of physics.

Quote:

Finally, from our agreement on the therapeutics staying separate from the forensics (in cases with trace), I submit the idea that hypnotic regression may support the healing needs of experiencers. These sessions do not yield solid, historical truth. But they can help rebalance a mind wracked by incomplete, fragmented memories of frightening, disturbing alien encounters. They may constitute part of effective therapy.

Final, final thoughts: in John Mack's (transcripted) sessions with abduction experiencers imo he demonstrated mastery of abstaining from suggesting/projecting memory. During Betty and Barney Hill's hypnotic regressions the UFO skeptical psychiatrist introduced negative suggestions (toward non alien explanations) and these failed to dissuade them, presumably due to the emotionaly intensity of these two early abductees' memories. This gives hope that raising Hypnotic Therapy standards may still yield more than healing. Even some information about what the abductees actually went through.

purr

I guess we'll agree to disagree on the subject of hypnosis. It is entirely too questionable to be of any real value to forensic research, and it is far too mysterious to be properly understood.

I've personally witnessed what I call an "unidentified hovering object" (it wasn't flying, it was motionless in the air). I don't doubt the essential reality of this phenomenon, but I do question a great deal of conventional and unconventional wisdom that's out there. It's merely a matter of our personalities and our individual strengths. I'm skeptical not because I don't want to believe anything, but because I wish to gain as much information as I can about a subject before I start forming opinions about it.

My compliments to the OP on this long and very well put together diatribe. It reads very well, and there is a very strong chance that the casual UFO fan may eat it up as being the “truth”. While the more experienced fan will see that the majority of it is just PERSONAL OPINION…

It is equally important to understand the “BIAS” of people presenting information, Jacob’s bias, is that he is trying to sell books, my bias is that I have done enough abduction research to believe much of what Jacobs has to say in his books.

The wild-card here is that no one here can be certain of the OP’s BIAS…! Did Jacobs turn him down for an interview? Or is he an old-school UFO guy (like Hynek) that rejects the entire Abduction scenario? Or is he trying to be controversial in order to “sell” his own blog & website?

He quotes the AMA, does anyone know what the AMA’s stance is on UFO’s/Abductions? That might be important, don’t you think? For instance if the AMA does not believe that UFO’s exist, would it be a big surprise if they try to discredit any hypnosis involving abduction research?

The UFO field is full of detractors, people who take issue or counterpoint to established researchers or theories and this is no different than the any of those. It is all too easy for someone with a so-called skeptical mind to cross over into being a full-blown debunker when quoting (or worse yet) believing all the negative press that is out there on just about every UFO issue.

As well as the OP’s filibuster reads, I invite anyone to read the opening text in any of David Jacob’s books. In his third book (The Threat) on pages 35 – 60, he discusses at length a number of issues including: Normal Event Memory, False Memory Syndrome, Media Contamination, Consciously Recalled Events, Memories Recalled During Hypnosis, Leading the Witness, Abduction Confabulation, and Competent Hypnosis, he explains all of these at length.

What gets conveniently lost is that the MAJORITY of Abduction victims Consciously Recall parts of the Abduction PRIOR to any Hypnosis. These people are NOT blank slates that have a Abduction event implanted in their brains…

Here two questions: If an Abduction Victim recalls the same incident without Hypnosis that they recall UNDER Hypnosis, does that verify that the Hypnosis is NOT implanting, changing or embellishing the actual event? Wouldn’t that further validate that the hypnosis is simply recalling deeper details of an incident that the abductee already recalls?

Next, we are going to get a little technical, anyone in manufacturing may be familiar with the term Cpk (Process Capability Index). Basically, it is a way of measuring the repeatability and consistency of a manufacturing process. Another technical term is DOE (Design Of Experiments), which is a way of conducting experiments in which you allow for and/or eliminate variables in order to insure that your findings are correct.

Let’s look at the data collected by five independent UFO Researchers; David Jacobs, John Mack, Budd Hopkins, Barbara Lamb, and Edith Fiore. All have used some form of hypnosis to extract details from their subjects.

In regards to Cpk, we have five different researchers, using five different hypnosis methods, which extract details that are consistent with other researchers’ data. That shows the capability of the process and the validity of hypnosis in terms of extracting reliable recollections.

In regards to DOE, we have five different researchers, using five different hypnosis methods, in five different parts of the country, with hundreds of different patients, yet somehow all five yield similar results (details), if anyone would care to explain that, PLEASE go ahead… Perhaps they are ALL lying?

We have people here who have the exact same recollections as the patients hypnotized by the above five, are they lying too?

I have said this before: with Abductions there is NOT a lot a gray-area, either someone is LYING or telling the TRUTH.

Now, to be clear, I do not necessarily believe in all of the deductions these five researchers make, nor do I agree with what they believe their data shows, but I do agree whole-heartedly on their use of hypnosis, if you don’t I have no problem with that, but don’t simply rely of a bunch of peoples words that do not believe in UFO’s in the first place.

Many people believe hypnosis is some magic thing out of a James Bond movie, which can be used to make ANYONE do or believe ANYTHING. Imagine lying back on a couch and daydreaming about some event in your past, imagine being able to focus on this event so clearly that you are (nearly) reliving it. All the time, you know you are on the couch and you know who is there with you, no magic, no voodoo, no mind-control, just a deeply relaxed state-of-mind.

CONCLUSION: The best part of the original post is where he tells everyone they should do their own research and make up their own minds! Don’t be fooled by all the pretty sounding words supposedly connecting the dots for you. And I would say if you have not read any of Dr. David Jacobs or Budd Hopkins books, do so and make up your minds from what you read and

A proper scientific and forensic investigative team transparent to the public would be a welcome addition to the UFO scenario, abduction is a serious issue when genuine and the last thing an abductees needs is a self imposing psychiatrist imposing his belief upon what is already a victim or some armchair scientist talking b/s because it is outside their scope of belief.The abductee has to be believed until proven false, there are many cases that hold vital evidence to this scenario being a reality, the deckmont Livingston incident that was the only incident fully investigated by the police and forensic department and would be a good starting point. My own case is still unanswered to this date, lets see science give me a credible answer as I sure as heck cannot find one, I drove into a bend in the road at 60 MPH and two hours later fifty yards down the road exited the scenario at 60MPH. now I can rule out all the junk answers such as sleep paralyze etc as I had a passenger who suffered the same experience only he had to be admitted to hospital. Now if a proper open scientific body was available I could have had them investigate the incident thus avoiding a lot of ridicule but alas this is not the case and we end up with only witness testimony and in our incident hospital records. the big problem with there being no official body is that the door is wide open to abuse not only by fake claims but by those charlatans cashing in on what may seem a good story or possible film and this subject is overflowing with such . as for hypnosis I personally believe it a lot of crock and again opens the door to abuse and in the case of a genuine claim may do more harm than good, the abductees should be given respect and treated with dignity with there story listened too without judgment, if people stopped paying for books or videos or giving cash to such as Greer and eliminated any possibility of fame then we would see more honest reports of incidents without reason for falsification or exaggeration. Science on its own is like a gun without bullets totally useless and a balance of witness testimony along with forensic evidence is needed along with scientific review, I know from personal experience a form of radio activity is present around ET and it lingers for some time in any contaminated incident and again a good starting point for proof positive.Remove the fame, gain, and most of all the secrecy such as all this anonymous stuff and start getting positive answers to something I know is a reality.

Defining Critical Thinking, one of many thought provocative and informative articles located on the site of The Critical Thinking Community, which consists of a foundation and center dedicated to the promotion of critical thinking and its benefits.

That of course presents challenges but is very important from several perspectives. I think one perspective is that it depends on what is trying to be accomplished. Does a witness want to obtain emotional support or professional investigation? The two are different services and should be sought (and provided) differently.

I also think there are, essentially, three kinds of information: One, that which can be verified as accurate, two, that which has been confirmed to be false and can be discarded, and, three, that which requires suspension of judgment pending further competent investigation. If those are applied, it does not matter if the testimony and claims are offered by self-described abductees, self-described mind control victims, former CIA personnel or anyone else – it only matters that we treat each testimony objectively pending further verification (or lack thereof).

Actually, it was my concern for the witness that added to my current stances on the topics. I was appalled at their treatment by people claiming to be helpful. That led to my interests in human rights violations concerning human research subjects.

Services provided by psychiatric professionals would be very helpful. I think that is the case whether witnesses are seeking emotional support or scientific investigation, as mental health pros can of course assist with either. I am of the opinion that emotional trauma is both the most relevant and poorly understood aspect of the abduction phenom, at least poorly understood among members of the UFO community.

I also think biologists and professionals who contribute to such specialized services as crime scene investigation would be extremely helpful. Self-proclaimed abduction researchers have missed the proverbial boat on collecting DNA evidence, and it is only a matter of time until they will have to account for it. Proper testing would plain and simply confirm or invalidate some of the current claims, and should be implemented, or, at the least, those failing to do so while claiming to be conducting scientific investigation should be held accountable.

We have people here who have the exact same recollections as the patients hypnotized by the above five, are they lying too?

I have said this before: with Abductions there is NOT a lot a gray-area, either someone is LYING or telling the TRUTH.

This raises the following question: how does one tell the difference between the truth and a lie, Mythos? If there's no concrete way to tell the difference, then there's no practical difference between them.

You will find that most cases of abduction carry little physical evidence and witness statement is the main fact, clinical diagnoses after the horse has bolted is pointless. Here’s a simple question JJflash do you believe abductees are telling the truth and the experience they describe is real ok maybe exaggerated a little but never the less true or do you prefer the clinical options a science that will not contemplate the reality of ET demands.

You will find that most cases of abduction carry little physical evidence and witness statement is the main fact, clinical diagnoses after the horse has bolted is pointless.

Three points for consideration, please:

One, if you are referencing my comments and as related to the article posted, I was not addressing "most cases of abduction," but primarily addressing the research of such cases when misrepresented as scientific investigation. specifically, anyone is entitled to conduct research, as well as believe anything they want, but they are not entitled to call it science if it does not meet certain criteria.

Two, there is a great deal of potential DNA evidence available and as has been repeatedly explained by microbiologist Dr. Tyler Kokjohn. I submit for consideration that it is negligent of researchers, such as Jacobs, to claim to be conducting scientific investigation yet fail to attempt to obtain or even so much as address such DNA evidence, and...

Here’s a simple question JJflash do you believe abductees are telling the truth and the experience they describe is real...

I think there are many different explanations, whatever and however diverse those explanations may ultimately prove to be, for the many different reports. Actually, I am sure there are many different explanations, and it is much more complex than a matter of whether or not people are telling the truth.

Thanks for the link to The Critical Thinking Community, jjflash. I had no idea that such an organization existed - and online membership is complimentary, too! I'm looking forward to accessing their educational materials, as critical thinking is of paramount importance to my major. As I've learned from many hours spent in the programming lab, the most difficult part of problem-solving lies in navigating your own bias, perception, and cognitive "quirks." The computer is always correct...it's the human that has the issues.

One can not talk about alien abduction unless one has been in that person shoes.

I agree the main problem is if this person is delusional, or if this person is telling the truth.

But a real abduction is very personal and it tests every thing you thought was real.

To be in a zone where time does not exists, where solid walls become fluid and transparent, where one is aware energy is coming from an unknown power source, then the abduction turns into an different level of existence.